The Neutrality Policy of the United States

should undoubtedly be borne equitably by all nations.
But the creation of what could be regarded as an international "police" force calls for three things, provision
for change, harmonizing the policies of all nations with
current standards of international conduct, the organization of force on some basis other than the grouping of
the armies of sovereign states each with its own special
interests.

The second question raised is whether mandatory
legislation would require the extension of embargoes to
members of the League employing sanctions. Obviously
it would not so long as they did not engage in military
action. If they did, the embargo would apply. If this
country then wished to support them in such action, it
could do so thru a declaration of war by Congress, but
it would not become a participant in the war by slipping
into it thru trade arrangements in which the people and
Congress had no part. At this point, it becomes clear
that involved in this issue is the question of critical importance to democratic government--is the actual war-
making power to be in the hands of the Executive or of
Congress?

On these many grounds, adequate mandatory neutrality legislation has widespread and determined support
as the most far-reaching contribution which the United
States can make toward permanent world peace.

I suggest that, prior to a future war, at least at its
very outset, the United States should endeavor to negotiate agreements with the belligerents, under which the United States should not challenge the right of the belligerent to restrict the flow of our neutral commerce

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.